From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability

[Bern80]

To be fair, I only read The Fountain Head and that was when I was 14-ish

This past weekend I head my brother-in-law telling my 14 year old niece he wanted her read Atlas Shrugged.. This is the second time I've heard a father encouraging his daughter to read Ayn Rand. I wonder what that's all about. I guess i'll have to read the book too.

It's definately my favorite (maybe that discourages you from reading it) book of all time.

 

[DiamondDave]

Crime pays.

And when you commit the crime.. you best be prepared to pay the piper as well

 

[jillian]

Bullshit

You are the one responsible for keeping yourself a commodity... as the environment changes, you change.... you stagnate, you get run over or pushed to the side...

Motivation and ambition are good things...

It is the lazy lib who promotes stagnation, reward for nothing, or handouts for sloth...

Lazy lib? I can pretty much guarantee I'm more educated than you and have worked at least as hard as you in my life.

Motivation and ambition my butt... I ran my own law practice for years... and when my son got too old for me to be working 6 days a week and 12 hours a day, it was time for me to scale back and take a job.

So you and the rest of the idiots who think that the difference between a "lib" and whatever the heck you think you are is laziness are as ignorant as they come.

Like I said, Rand was a great novelist.... a society that actually ran on her principles would be Dickensian...

 

[DiamondDave]

Lazy lib? I can pretty much guarantee I'm more educated than you and have worked at least as hard as you in my life.

Motivation and ambition my butt... I ran my own law practice for years... and when my son got too old for me to be working 6 days a week and 12 hours a day, it was time for me to scale back and take a job.

So you and the rest of the idiots who think that the difference between a "lib" and whatever the heck you think you are is laziness are as ignorant as they come.

Like I said, Rand was a great novelist.... a society that actually ran on her principles would be Dickensian...

Anyone who promotes handouts for nothing, wealth redistribution, etc promotes sloth and reward for it... and then you have the other end of the lib spectrum who votes for it to receive those handouts they think everyone else owes them... those are the two things I find truly disgusting

It is not someone else's responsibility that you or anyone else succeeds or has what they want or need... it is nice that there are people out there with a charitable spirit who VOLUNTARILY give of themselves for the less fortunate... but there is nothing OWED... unlike what the lib culture thinks

 

[Anguille]

And when you commit the crime.. you best be prepared to pay the piper as well

Unless you are a CEO.

 

[DiamondDave]

Unless you are a CEO.

Nope.. they best be prepared to pay the piper if they are committing crimes too (See Ebbers, Nacchio, etc)...

But earning more and achieving more and being a commodity that pays more than a shoe salesman is NOT a crime

 

[Bern80]

Bunch of crap.... as Editec says, see what happens when you're business/job/skills get outsourced or the companies needing them close down or downsize.

And, we know how well small businesses are doing in Bush's economy.

I think the Ayn Rand sorts need to understand that she was a great novelist... and a horrible economist.

This is exactley what I'm talking about in the other thread I started. Why do you have this overwhelming desire to absolve people of personal responsibility? Why do you insist people have no control over things they actually do have control over? As Diamond Dave poined out, why is it someone elses responsibility to keep YOU valueable? What is there to be gained by trying to place the blame on someone else for where you are in life? Are you just going to sit on your ass playing the blame game, hope someone sees it your way and hands you a big fat check? Or maybe, just maybe, if people came to the realiziation that it is they themselves that are ultimately responsible for the success or failure, we would all achieve a lot more.

 

[Bern80]

Lazy lib? I can pretty much guarantee I'm more educated than you and have worked at least as hard as you in my life.

Motivation and ambition my butt... I ran my own law practice for years... and when my son got too old for me to be working 6 days a week and 12 hours a day, it was time for me to scale back and take a job.

So you and the rest of the idiots who think that the difference between a "lib" and whatever the heck you think you are is laziness are as ignorant as they come.

Like I said, Rand was a great novelist.... a society that actually ran on her principles would be Dickensian...

So if that is you, a self proclaimed 'lib' and you know you were able to do it and manage to be quite successful, what's with everybody else? Why do you make excuses for them instead of holding them to the same standard you held yourself? Would you have made excuses for yourself?

 

[Zoomie1980]

In Defense of Income Inequality
By Peter Schwartz
LINK



A Nation of Thieves
by Walter Williams (August 6, 2008)
LINK



An alternative theory for our Liberal friends.

In other words, increasing your quality of life is not a problem so long as it does NOT result in a comparable decrease in someone else's life.

We will always have UNEQUAL outcomes because we are NOT created equal. Some are smart, some are not; some are motivated, some are not, some are risk-averse, some are not, some crave added responsibility, some do not, some are borne with great physical skills, most are not; some are lazy, some are not, and so on and so forth....

 

[Zoomie1980]

Lazy lib? I can pretty much guarantee I'm more educated than you and have worked at least as hard as you in my life.

Motivation and ambition my butt... I ran my own law practice for years... and when my son got too old for me to be working 6 days a week and 12 hours a day, it was time for me to scale back and take a job.

So you and the rest of the idiots who think that the difference between a "lib" and whatever the heck you think you are is laziness are as ignorant as they come.

Like I said, Rand was a great novelist.... a society that actually ran on her principles would be Dickensian...

Liberals, or at least those who vote for liberals come in two flavors. The lower economic stratta who are basically looking for a handout because, yes, they are either too lazy to do what it really takes to succeed in life, or made a series of bad choices and now wants a bailout. These are not really "liberals" they are panhandlers that vote for liberals because liberals like to give them stuff they haven't earned.

Then there are the true liberals. These are usually highly educated and/or the very wealthy who basically either have some deep seeded inner guilt about their current economic and social standing, or have some false belief that the human species has mentally and socially evolved much further away from their primal roots and instincts than the species really has....

 

[DiamondDave]

Liberals, or at least those who vote for liberals come in two flavors. The lower economic stratta who are basically looking for a handout because, yes, they are either too lazy to do what it really takes to succeed in life, or made a series of bad choices and now wants a bailout. These are not really "liberals" they are panhandlers that vote for liberals because liberals like to give them stuff they haven't earned.

Then there are the true liberals. These are usually highly educated and/or the very wealthy who basically either have some deep seeded inner guilt about their current economic and social standing, or have some false belief that the human species has mentally and socially evolved much further away from their primal roots and instincts than the species really has....

Ding Ding Ding

I could not have said it better myself...

And the funny thing is I was just having a very similar talk with my oldest daughter....

great timing

 

[Anguille]

It's definately my favorite (maybe that discourages you from reading it) book of all time.

If you can promise me it will be better than The Clan of the Cave Bear, (the number one worst book I ever attempted to read), I might have a look at it.

 

[Anguille]

Liberals, or at least those who vote for liberals come in two flavors. The lower economic stratta who are basically looking for a handout because, yes, they are either too lazy to do what it really takes to succeed in life, or made a series of bad choices and now wants a bailout. These are not really "liberals" they are panhandlers that vote for liberals because liberals like to give them stuff they haven't earned.

Then there are the true liberals. These are usually highly educated and/or the very wealthy who basically either have some deep seeded inner guilt about their current economic and social standing, or have some false belief that the human species has mentally and socially evolved much further away from their primal roots and instincts than the species really has....

What an astounding number of moronic clichés you've managed to cram into your two little paragraphs.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Ding Ding Ding

I could not have said it better myself...

And the funny thing is I was just having a very similar talk with my oldest daughter....

great timing

And a third group a left out. Educated young people and college students are very idealistic who have yet to endure the hard knocks of trying to advance a career, raise children in this society, face the challenges of death and illness of wives, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and generally have no real life experiences yet. These are the inexperienced that have yet to figure out theory has very little to do with reality.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bunch of crap.... as Editec says, see what happens when you're business/job/skills get outsourced or the companies needing them close down or downsize.

And, we know how well small businesses are doing in Bush's economy.

Our business is doing just fine, but we'll see how much more we'll have to pay out to the feds if BHO gets elected

 

[Jeepers]

Ding Ding Ding

I could not have said it better myself...

Really... You say like there was some doubt there that you ever could.

 

[Jeepers]

Ding Ding Ding

I could not have said it better myself...

Really... You say like there was some doubt there that you ever could.

 

[editec]

This about income inequality--people are pissed that everyone does get the same pay no matter what they do. A bank president gets paid more than a shoesaleman. That's pretty much how things work.

Yeah, which people are those?

The imaginatary cardboard cutouts of liberals that you think are hiding under everybody's beds or something?

Honestly creating strawmen to complain about is pretty lame, amigo.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Anyone who can't see the problem with extreme income inequality is extremely short-sighted, and has no understanding of history. In fact, one of the very things that allowed the United States to emerge as it did was BECAUSE it was at least a relatively more equal society than most others at the time of it's beginnings, and that's true for several societies that have become relatively "successful" in the modern world, and the reasons for that are incredibly obvious. Look at what has happened in the societies where income is most skewed, just look at the history of Latin America and it's extremely easy to see- a small minority owned nearly all the land, all the resources and all the capital. Such a ridiculously wealthy minority has no need to utilize all the resources in their optimal way, and the inequality has been very hard to eliminate. The national economy begins to stagnate, because the domestic market begins to shrink. Political freedom diminishes, because anyone can face the reality, that the richer you are, the more influence you will have. That small percentage of the population with vast resources can easily monopolize information, and thus monopolize power. They begin to be above the law, even. Government spending begins to slant strongly towards the interests that are controlling the information (and political power).

Sure, "Never in America!". Well, obvously it's not entirely like that now, but the thing with income inequality is that it can very easily spread. It takes two homeless people to produce several homeless children, and considering the fact that if the major interests that fund government campaigns have no need for public education, then education goes down. The underclass grows. In any relatively serious economic situation more join the underclass and not as many come out, all the while it becomes increasingly easier for the already very wealthy to keep expanding their wealth. All of it happening over the course of the years, obviously, not a sudden impact. But it's quite dangerous, and it could very well happen.

 

[editec]

Anyone who can't see the problem with extreme income inequality is extremely short-sighted, and has no understanding of history.

Yup!

In fact, one of the very things that allowed the United States to emerge as it did was BECAUSE it was at least a relatively more equal society than most others at the time of it's beginnings,

Exactly. Americans with little money could go west, claim a piece of land and work their asses off to make something of it. Try doing that now.

and that's true for several societies that have become relatively "successful" in the modern world, and the reasons for that are incredibly obvious.

You want to know what made America's monied classes the wealthiest in the world starting around 1850 on through on to about 1950 (in order of when things happened

1. Huge untapped resources (we got the land for FREE!)
2. isolationism from Europe's problems and the ability to benefit from their wars
3. protectionism against FREE trade that fostered American industies
4. patent laws promoting invention, AND the recognition from EUROPE to respect those patents
5. American genius to invent busines systems and inventions that created the robber baron class. (there was no already existing class to stop that robber baron class from forming like there was in so much of Europe)

The above conditions set up the USA to become a great two tier economic system. It gave America the capital formation to take itself to the next step of modern economic development.

6 Unionism and reform liberalism -- yes, by making America a place where we could foster a faily affluent middle class, the monied classes (who fought these developments tooth and nail) actually became even more wealthy than they're ever imagined possible.

Look at what has happened in the societies where income is most skewed, just look at the history of Latin America and it's extremely easy to see- a small minority owned nearly all the land, all the resources and all the capital. Such a ridiculously wealthy minority has no need to utilize all the resources in their optimal way, and the inequality has been very hard to eliminate. The national economy begins to stagnate, because the domestic market begins to shrink. Political freedom diminishes, because anyone can face the reality, that the richer you are, the more influence you will have. That small percentage of the population with vast resources can easily monopolize information, and thus monopolize power. They begin to be above the law, even. Government spending begins to slant strongly towards the interests that are controlling the information (and political power).

YES! People forget that when money becomes so powerful that it dominates the society, it ALSO represses creativity, that might otherwise bubble up fromt he Masses. There would have been no John D, Rockefeller in Brazil because that artisocrapic society would have prevented him from blooming into the robber baron.

Sure, "Never in America!". Well, obvously it's not entirely like that now, but the thing with income inequality is that it can very easily spread. It takes two homeless people to produce several homeless children, and considering the fact that if the major interests that fund government campaigns have no need for public education, then education goes down. The underclass grows. In any relatively serious economic situation more join the underclass and not as many come out, all the while it becomes increasingly easier for the already very wealthy to keep expanding their wealth. All of it happening over the course of the years, obviously, not a sudden impact. But it's quite dangerous, and it could very well happen.

Look at history.

What it teaches us is that a society with a wealthy upper class, a reasonably affluent middle class, and a small poverty class is more prodcutive than a society where the middle class is small.

America and then EUROPE became powerful first because their upper classes became powerful, but then the began to dominate the world because they established laws and socieal systems which FOSTERED that affluent middle class.

This is why I hate libertarianism.

It is the kind of short sighted thinking that monarches and aristocraps have had since mankind sormed society.

MOney and power trumps brains and creativity IF we alow that to happen.

that is what people like Ayn Rand don;t seem to realize.

Yes, people who work hard and create SHOULD get rich.

But if the system is too lopsided most of those people never will get that chance.

doubt me? Consider that most of the technological aflluence came from the genius of well educated middle or upper middle classes..as does most of the invention, science and so forth this nation depends on to make it great.

Crush that middle class you you kill that steam of bright and hopeful people.

That, is what I think America is in the process of doing right now, to be frank.

We're eating our children, folks.